I hope you realize that this reads like a parody of an out of touch beltway person extolling the personal benefits they receive from immigration, mainly that it's cheaper than paying American child care workers.
I sort of hate populism and think that the Gary Johnson "everyone comes through the door and everyone gets a work visa" model of immigration would work best, but here's some word soup to go with the salad:
This article assumes that everyone has $30k in disposable income for child care, assumes they have the stability and resources to apply for an au pair, and then goes on to assume that au pairs are the modal immigrant that people express concern about when they say they're concerned about immigration. This argument only lands with people with the means to hire an au pair who are already inclined towards more permissive immigration regimes. It seems frivolous, annoying, and out of touch to anyone who isn't in that cohort. And hey maybe you were just trying to make some friends in DC feel good about the public service they do to the country by hiring au pairs, you do you.
But kudos for discovering the incredible life hack that if you have money, you can pay for child care. What other revelations await - purchasing in bulk saves money? Buy instead of leasing?
The entire point of an au pair is that they're young and temporary ways to get a divorce off the ground. Not permanent solutions to a systemic child care problem.
“The most common I hear now is, “If you like immigrants so much, why don’t you let them live in your home?” My response is that we do, and the experience is so positive that I recommend you try it – especially if you have young children.”
Except you know they mean males, aged 20-30, who don’t speak English, won’t watch your kids, and entered the country illegally. So is there any point to this essay, or was it just some practice with pedantry
Since I have an au pair already, do you suggest getting a French private chef as well? I could get a young up and coming one, probably a lot less expensive. It is probably cheaper than going out to eat 7 nights a week at high end restaurants. Thanks in advance for your advice.
This is great. I recently watched all three versions of "Father of the Bride." The 50s and 90s versions are fairly similar, but one thing that stuck with me is that in the 50s version, the bride and groom's family both have maids to help around the house (although they commute, they aren't live-in). The 90s version lacks this element, even though the families in the 90s version are wealthier than the ones in the 50s version. Being able to hire someone to help around the house is no longer in reach for ordinary Americans.
This realization is what has really radicalized me against immigration restriction. It's devastating to see so many parents being forced to cut back on their careers because they can't afford childcare. Immigration restrictionists hate their fellow citizens, there is no limit to the harms they will inflict on them if those harms reduce the number of foreigners in the country.
We have exponentially more immigrants now, both legal and illegal, than we did in the 50s, and there are dozens of other factors that have impacted the cost of live-in labor, and it seems really unlikely that immigration is the thing that's made the difference between having a live in servant and not having a live in servant.
The main thing that has reduced people's ability to hire servants (live-in or otherwise) is competition from other industries for labor. Our economy is so good at creating new jobs that there aren't enough people to fill the old ones. People qualified to be servants find that there are more lucrative opportunities in other industries. As a result, "servant" is a job that goes increasingly unfilled. Even though immigration has increased since the 50s, it's not nearly enough to fight this effect.
We could fix the labor shortage by allowing more labor to come here. America had nearly unlimited immigration in the 1800s and it's no coincidence that that same century turned it into the greatest country on the face of the planet. The only thing standing in our way is restrictionists, who act as if they hate prosperity and national greatness and love suffering, poverty, and stagnation.
You destroy any trust in your plausible niche/convenience argument into an insulting & elitist open-borders pitch, while also managing to exclude many young Americans who could gain from internal migration.
You got to personally vet your “temporary guest worker non-immigrant who went home after two years”.
Who is always a healthy young woman.
She stayed in your house at your behest and if you ever wanted her gone you could do so with a phone call.
A real analogy would be if some random dude from Haiti barged into your house without permission and started squatting in the place. If you wanted him to leave the police would not come. And you were forced to pay all the expenses for any government welfare he or his children used in their lifetime.
I don't think it's a good analogy either because the random dude would almost certainly work in the United States, not squat all over the place and would receive little to none government welfare.
"Who is always a healthy young woman."
Perhaps the immigration compromise should be a "generous but restrictive" immigration policy that only allows in young women? :D I am joking a bit, but not completely.
I hope you realize that this reads like a parody of an out of touch beltway person extolling the personal benefits they receive from immigration, mainly that it's cheaper than paying American child care workers.
Me: "I found this awesome way to improve your life and you can do it too!"
Randy: [populist word salad].
I sort of hate populism and think that the Gary Johnson "everyone comes through the door and everyone gets a work visa" model of immigration would work best, but here's some word soup to go with the salad:
This article assumes that everyone has $30k in disposable income for child care, assumes they have the stability and resources to apply for an au pair, and then goes on to assume that au pairs are the modal immigrant that people express concern about when they say they're concerned about immigration. This argument only lands with people with the means to hire an au pair who are already inclined towards more permissive immigration regimes. It seems frivolous, annoying, and out of touch to anyone who isn't in that cohort. And hey maybe you were just trying to make some friends in DC feel good about the public service they do to the country by hiring au pairs, you do you.
But kudos for discovering the incredible life hack that if you have money, you can pay for child care. What other revelations await - purchasing in bulk saves money? Buy instead of leasing?
You really didn’t read it, did you?
I think his point is that increased immigration could lead to everyone getting these personal benefits, not just out of touch beltway people.
The entire point of an au pair is that they're young and temporary ways to get a divorce off the ground. Not permanent solutions to a systemic child care problem.
That was his goal
“The most common I hear now is, “If you like immigrants so much, why don’t you let them live in your home?” My response is that we do, and the experience is so positive that I recommend you try it – especially if you have young children.”
Except you know they mean males, aged 20-30, who don’t speak English, won’t watch your kids, and entered the country illegally. So is there any point to this essay, or was it just some practice with pedantry
What a lovely piece and, boy, do you get the worst comments. I think you're right that people don't know about this program - I didn't.
Since I have an au pair already, do you suggest getting a French private chef as well? I could get a young up and coming one, probably a lot less expensive. It is probably cheaper than going out to eat 7 nights a week at high end restaurants. Thanks in advance for your advice.
Many normal Americans also have a sommelier so they know what to au pair with their wines
That's a very good point, I could have three immigrants! I would thrice as good as the others on my block!
This is great. I recently watched all three versions of "Father of the Bride." The 50s and 90s versions are fairly similar, but one thing that stuck with me is that in the 50s version, the bride and groom's family both have maids to help around the house (although they commute, they aren't live-in). The 90s version lacks this element, even though the families in the 90s version are wealthier than the ones in the 50s version. Being able to hire someone to help around the house is no longer in reach for ordinary Americans.
This realization is what has really radicalized me against immigration restriction. It's devastating to see so many parents being forced to cut back on their careers because they can't afford childcare. Immigration restrictionists hate their fellow citizens, there is no limit to the harms they will inflict on them if those harms reduce the number of foreigners in the country.
We have exponentially more immigrants now, both legal and illegal, than we did in the 50s, and there are dozens of other factors that have impacted the cost of live-in labor, and it seems really unlikely that immigration is the thing that's made the difference between having a live in servant and not having a live in servant.
The main thing that has reduced people's ability to hire servants (live-in or otherwise) is competition from other industries for labor. Our economy is so good at creating new jobs that there aren't enough people to fill the old ones. People qualified to be servants find that there are more lucrative opportunities in other industries. As a result, "servant" is a job that goes increasingly unfilled. Even though immigration has increased since the 50s, it's not nearly enough to fight this effect.
We could fix the labor shortage by allowing more labor to come here. America had nearly unlimited immigration in the 1800s and it's no coincidence that that same century turned it into the greatest country on the face of the planet. The only thing standing in our way is restrictionists, who act as if they hate prosperity and national greatness and love suffering, poverty, and stagnation.
Extraordinary — @eigenrobot
You destroy any trust in your plausible niche/convenience argument into an insulting & elitist open-borders pitch, while also managing to exclude many young Americans who could gain from internal migration.
But that's on brand.
The next real argument that you present will be the first.
You got to personally vet your “temporary guest worker non-immigrant who went home after two years”.
Who is always a healthy young woman.
She stayed in your house at your behest and if you ever wanted her gone you could do so with a phone call.
A real analogy would be if some random dude from Haiti barged into your house without permission and started squatting in the place. If you wanted him to leave the police would not come. And you were forced to pay all the expenses for any government welfare he or his children used in their lifetime.
I don't think it's a good analogy either because the random dude would almost certainly work in the United States, not squat all over the place and would receive little to none government welfare.
"Who is always a healthy young woman."
Perhaps the immigration compromise should be a "generous but restrictive" immigration policy that only allows in young women? :D I am joking a bit, but not completely.
What a stupid thing to read. Thankfully I didn't. You scammed me out of 3 or 4 legitimate paragraphs but that's it.
I thought Au Pairs were really expensive but I guess they're really not compared to daycares.
Will you let a Somali man live in your home for your next experiment?
While this all makes sense, you know very well that these are (mostly) not the people who those opposed to immigration are talking about.
I had to go read several other articles, but this is in fact NOT parody. A reminder why it's great that America is such a big place.
Do young people still want to come to this country?